[rpd] way forward on the PDWG after the Recall of the co-chairs

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 21, 2021, at 7:10 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> In my view defending that just recalled Co-Chairs be able run elections for a role they just have been recalled within due process is pure political correctness, guided maybe by some fear of "excluding someone somehow". It seems an exaggeration that does not add anything good to the process. This doesn't make any sense at all and is something that should be written in the stone, so be part of a next PDP adjustment to make it clear which is obvious.

> 

If you think I am in any way driven by any sort of political correctness, then you have never had a meaningful conversation with me.
I’m a pretty politically incorrect individual.
If you think I’m afraid of excluding people from something when there is a legitimate structure for doing so, again, you miss your mark.

However…

There is no basis in the current PDP, bylaws, or election process for excluding a candidate who meets the criteria defined.
Since they were already elected and serving in the role, we can presume that they meet the defined criteria as failure to do so was not a basis for their recall.

Whether you think it makes sense or not, until it is “written in stone” or at least written in the PDP, it is positively wrong to arbitrarily enforce it.

Further, it takes a very small fraction of the electorate to recall the cochairs. If a majority is willing to re-elect them thereafter, then there is no valid case for preventing the electorate from doing so. While I think this is unlikely and I think that it would show incredibly poor judgment on the part of the electorate to do so, I will not be willing to substitute my own opinions here for the judgment of the electorate.

I am opposed to excluding them because it substitutes the judgment of a few for the judgment of the many and that is antidemocratic.

> Let's just move on with selecting new and experienced Co-Charis that can get us on track again.

> 

Let’s just move on within the bounds set by the PDP and avoid adding arbitrary perversions to the electoral process that are not supported by policy, bylaws, or procedure.

Owen


> Fernando

> 

> On 21/02/2021 21:45, Owen DeLong via RPD wrote:

>> 

>> 

>>> On Feb 21, 2021, at 3:24 PM, Gregoire EHOUMI <gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr <mailto:gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr>> wrote:

>>> 

>>> Hi Owen

>>> 

>>> 

>>>> On Feb 17, 2021, at 9:30 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

>>>> 

>>>> This is not an accurate reflection of my comments.

>>>> 

>>>> I stated emphatically that the recalled co-chairs should be allowed to run.

>>> 

>>> The recalled cochairs to be allowed to run as interim cochairs to serve the remainder of the terms?  Or thereafter?

>>> 

>>> Reason and decency will win.

>> 

>> They should remain eligible to run in any election for co-chairs for any terms available in said elections.

>> 

>>>> I also stated emphatically that we should follow the PDP and the PDP calls for the working group

>>>> to elect co-chairs..

>>>> 

>>> 

>>> Your insatiable appetite for election and persistence in the wrong interpretation of section 3.3, make any discussion with you pointless...

>>> Can you point to the section of the CPM which  calls for the WG to “elect” co-chairs?

>> 

>> I stand corrected, 3.3 is not where election is specified… Rather it is contained here:

>> 

>> https://afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group#election <https://afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group#election>

>> 

>>> Enough has been said, time to move on

>> 

>> Apologies for the confusion on where the prohibition of consensus was derived from. It was an honest mistake.

>> 

>> In fact, the provenance of this document is unclear to me and I am unsure as to whether it is actually authoritative or not as a result.

>> 

>> Can someone from staff please review that document and get back to this group on its provenance and level of authority over the conduct of the group?

>> 

>> If we are not bound by that document, then I will, indeed, admit that consensus (if it can be achieved) may be a valid way forward.

>> 

>> Now ,Gregoire, can you acknowledge that in a contentious environment where consensus cannot be achieved that an election, preferably one using ranked choice voting, is the best way forward?

>> 

>> Owen

>> 

>>> 

>>> —

>>> Gregoire

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>>> Owen

>>>> 

>>>> 

>>>>> On Feb 16, 2021, at 3:07 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:

>>>>> 

>>>>> Dear Board, all,

>>>>> 

>>>>> Following the February 10th email from the Board Chair, the PDWG has discussed the possible options on the way forward after the Recall of the PDWG co-chairs.

>>>>> 

>>>>> The attached document, already circulated today in the RPD, is a summary and conclusions of the discussions reached by the consensus of the PDWG.

>>>>> 

>>>>> The PDWG hasn't requested any change to the document in the last few hours, however it has been updated just to correct a couple of typos (track of changes show them).

>>>>> 

>>>>> As a consequence, the decision is:

>>>>> 

>>>>> "Halt everything regarding PDP decisions, until the board can organize on-line elections in a few weeks (with the previous electoral census)."

>>>>> 

>>>>> We should remark, as it has been suggested already by some participants in the discussion, that the ideal situation would be, once candidates are introduced to the PDWG, we have a constructive discussion in the list (and hopefully among the candidates) and some of the candidates withdraw, so an actual election process is no longer needed, as it already happened in the previous elections. Of course, this can't be guaranteed, so the elections process must be ready for that contingence.

>>>>> 

>>>>> We will await your decision about the timing and the call for candidates.

>>>>> 

>>>>> Regards,

>>>>> Jordi

>>>>> @jordipalet

>>>>> 

>>>>> 

>>>>> 

>>>>> 

>>>>> 

>>>>> **********************************************

>>>>> IPv4 is over

>>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

>>>>> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/>

>>>>> The IPv6 Company

>>>>> 

>>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

>>>>> 

>>>>> <summary-of-way-forward-new-co-chairs-v2.pdf>_______________________________________________

>>>>> RPD mailing list

>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

>>>> 

>>>> 

>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>> RPD mailing list

>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

>>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210223/ab734de8/attachment-0001.html>